About your Search

20121128
20121206
STATION
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 3
MSNBCW 3
KQED (PBS) 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
makers realize the real issues relate to helping support and extend the civil rights of people today. with autism, that process is still going on, but i am confident because i believe this is a civil rights issue. i believe the united states of america can guarantee the civil rights of all its citizens. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you mr. ne'eman. thank you to reach of the panelists. in regular order, the chair will recognize mr. burton from indiana. >> first of all, i want to thank you all very much. we talked to those people for three hours and you had to sit there. i want to tell you, i am amazed your posteriors could survive that long. the second thing i would like to say is that abraham lincoln said, let the people know the facts and the country will be saved. one of the things that we have is that i do not think there is enough information getting out to the people who are not effected. i was like that. my grandson became artistic, and then all of a sudden it became a cause for me. i was chairman at the time so i had the resources to do somet
with this and not leave to the voters because the voters often get these things wrong. i don't think civil rights question shoes go to voters partly because you get into the thing of the whim of the voters and where the political whims are. we don't vote in this country on fundamental rights. freedom of speech will always be there for us. and these sort of questions like marriage and family fall within that. i mean, how would we like it if this four years people say, well, you can be married to jonathan, i can be married to rita and then the next four year, we don't like it. >> although i'm sure he would make a wonderful spouse, i don't want to -- >> hopefully we'll find out one day. >> moving right along. >> but one point i want to make here is a lot of times the court reflects kints of where we are as a society and i think what's so interesting about this time right now is we're right on the cusp. you can really see the supreme court going either way where five years ago, you know, their decision would have been obvious coming down against same-sex marriage. five years from now i think it will likely be
civil rights. but as the tool has become a regular tool of political warfare, scrutiny of the procedure has increased and questions raised about its impact on the chamber. now, reid and other senate democrats want to change the rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold needed to formally begin debate on a bill; and require a "talking filibuster," forcing senators to make their case on the floor for hours and hours, like jimmy stewart did in the 1939 film "mr. smith goes to washington." >> i'm not, and i'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause. >> holman: or former south carolina senator strom thurmond, who spoke for over 24 hours in an attempt to defeat the civil rights act of 1957. but in today's senate, where 60 votes are needed to pass almost any piece of legislation, it means even the threat of a filibuster can gum up the process. democratic leader harry reid says enough is enough. >> we have this crazy idea, mr. president, that if we're going to have a filibuster, you have to stand and say something, not hide in your office someplace or go to a wedding that you're h
of constitutional import like civil rights which we all think of the segregationists leaving the floor book on the floor of the senate to hold the bills up. they were pretty big bills but now every single nomination, whether it's for a judgeship or for the assistant secretary of commerce is filibustered in effect and held up and on average now, it takes 188 days for a judge to be confirmed. you have a judicial emergency all over the country with not enough judges. i'll say i actually think there is an argument to be made that you want more consensus on judicial nominations perhaps than not because they're for lifetime but these everyday appointments, budget bills routine bills this isn't about deliberation, the world's greatest deliberative body. it is about someone finding a tool and using it to gum things up and it is time to change the tool. >> eliot: fascinating counter point about the judicial nomination. i hadn't thought about it that way. congressman, i want to come back to you for the last question, unfortunately.
, or latino organizations, it's civil rights organizations, the labor movement, it's evangelicals, parts of the business community. there will be immigration reform in 2013 and the president will be forced to sign something that gets through congress whether he wants to or not. it's clear he does want to. >> it appears he wants to. the dream act, here we are in lame duck again, lame duck in 2010 was the great exciting moment for progressives. a thousand things that hadn't happened pineally happened. no particular conversation about another dream act again. >> let's keep in mind. i'm not as optimistic about the future of ledge indication as you. in the context of the immigration problem, immigration policy problem, let's say, in the united states, dreamers and the dream act is symbolic. it aekts a lot of people. it's symbolic in a universe where we have 10 million or 11 million or however many in the shadows. we have 141,000 visas a year. what the hell is that? >> it's that history, right? >> it is that history. >> it's bur okay tra advertised this kind of stuff. it's not a solution of ex
in this fashion, and use them in unprecedented numbers. host: and according to history, civil rights was one of those things the filibuster got used for. >> what's interesting about those is while it wasn't a partisan issue, it was a factual issue. dirksen was a great hero of the civil rights revolution right alongside his partner, lyndon johnson. it was the southern democrats, but at the -- that point in time, it was the southern democrats that wanted to talk and one held a record of talking for 24 hours straight. these are filibusters where they don't want to take the floor and they have no interest in debating. it's all to block things. when you get a filibuster when you have bills that pass unanimously, it becomes clear that this was not a matter of principle over a particular bill but a tool of obstruction. host: randy in minnesota, republican line, good morning. go ahead. caller: yes. good morning, c-span. this filibuster thing, this is the perfect way for our government to work the way our government was set up to work with checks and balances. with the filibuster rule, -- i'm getting
it happen, but in the civil rights era, for example, when we had those celebrated filibusters, they were not partisan in the sense. they were factional. the fact is the filibusters done by southern democratic senators to oppose civil rights or voting rights legislation were opposed by republicans just as they were by notary -- non-southern departments, and civil rights legislation, overcoming filibusters being enacted was at least as much to the credibility of the senate minority leader as to lyndon johnson so what we've seen now is a regular use of the filibuster now as a partisan tool and not just a group of members of the party, but the entire party as fashioned by the minority leader. the second is the use of the filibuster routinely, not on issues of great national significance, and not simply on those issues with the majority leader kills the amendment tree, but on issues and nominations which ultimately pass unanimously or near unanimously, and keep in mind on no , nomins where holds, which are notices that you will deny unanimous concept, and in some instances have been filibust
about it or were willing to put everything on the line to make it happen. but in the civil rights era, for example, when we had those celebrated filibusters, they were not partisan in a sense. they were factional. the fact is that the filibusters done by southern democratic senators who opposed civil rights are voting rights legislation were opposed by republicans. just as they were by a non-southern democrats. and the fact is that civil rights legislation and overcoming those filibusters are being enacted were as much to the credit and responsibility of the senate minority leader as lyndon johnson. so what we have seen is a regular use of the filibuster tool. the entire party is fashioned by the majority leader. the second is the use of the filibuster routinely, not simply on those issues where the majority leader though the amendment. but on issues and nominations which ultimately passed unanimously or near unanimously. keep in mind nominations, in which he denied unanimous consent, in some instances have been the luster, a lot of them on executive nomination, you don't have amendme
intensely about it, where will put everything on the line to make it happen. in the civil rights era, when we had those celebrated filibusters, they were not partisan in the sense. they were factional. the fact is the filibuster's done by southern democratic senators to oppose civil rights or voting rights in a deflation were opposed by republicans, just as they were by non- southern democrats. the fact is that civil rights and legislation and overcoming this filibuster's and being enacted which at least as much to the credit and responsibility of everett dirksen, the minority leader, as to lyndon johnson. what we have seen is a regular use of the filibuster now as a partisan tool, and not just a group of members of the party, but the entire party has fashioned by the minority leader. the second is the use of the filibuster routinely, not on issues of great national significance, and not simply on those issues where the majority leader kills the amendment tree, but on issues and nominations which ultimately pass unanimously or near it unanimously. keep in mind on nominations, where holds w
know, howard baker was everett dirkson's son-in-law. and during the run up to the civil rights bill, howard is sitting up in dirkson's office, phone rings, dirkson picks it up, says -- and all howard can say is him saying, mr. president, i just can't come down tonight, i was there last night. i was there the night before, i just got to go home. hangs up. 20 minutes passed, and he hears beagles barking in the hallway outside his office. and lbj walks in with his dogs. so because he wouldn't come down to see him, johnson called a car, got in and came up to just force a conversation with dirkson. >> and lyndon johnson -- >> and we got a bill. >> and by the way, l lyndon johnson. he's so detached and disconnected from the hill, he would call, mark haleprin, famously, subcommittee chairman in the house. and say, hey, i hear the mark-up didn't go very well today. do you need any help? what can i do? do you need me to call anybody? how can i push this along? again, we're not heaping all the blame on the president. let me underline again. >> yeah. >> john boehner's counter offer was patheti
leader and role model. he supported civil rights bills, refused to sign the southern manifesto in 19 of a an helped write the historical civil rights act. may we also remember congressman jack brooks. he was a great man, a political figure, a u.s. marine veteran and a friend that i'll never forget. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: ask unanimous consent to address how it's for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, starting at the age of 15, i worked any job i could find to support myself throughout college. manually dug ditches, construction work, plant work. after college i found an entry-level position in the field in which i sturdied. and with hard work i have constantly been employed for 36 years and now i'm near retirement. i've never requested or received any federal financial assistance. i enjoy contributing to my community and my church and this is my american dream. now this administration want
the americans with disabilities act, which was extremely difficult to negotiate. we passed the civil rights bill. there was, if you will, a precedent in terms of cooperation and climate. as the representative point out, later on that would manifest itself in what was really an unprecedented interaction between the white house and congress on dealing with the invasion to kuwait and trying to pull together a unified perspective. i think the climate -- it was not accidental. we worked awfully hard in order to maintain that. i certainly feel that the key to it was the fact that tom foley and president bush had been members of congress to gather. they had developed a personal relationship. other members of congress, including dave and others, had been there. the president was in the house -- there were personal relationships that we, frankly, in the nicest sense of the word, exploited as much as possible in order to maintain the comedy of the process. one more point, since we were commenting on him -- he was really in my opinion from at least our perspective the heart and soul of the details of this
reid's theory. right now, if you look at the voting history of the same there is a pro-gun majority in the senate. if subject to civil majority but would have a chance of passing to another thing that is very, very important is getting rid of senate majority leader harry reid and the future majority centers. their needs new point of order to get rid of this. reid's tactic about 60 times, far more than its predecessors all combined. it is something that would allow all members of the senate to actually participate in this deliberative process, to offer amendments. and if you were to pass this, it would be something that would be great to pass with 67 votes shutting down the debate. you might not have -- old problem of the let's call serial filibusters, it might actually go away if republicans were actually allowed to producer in the process. what we are seeing now is a construction of the minority's rights, the minority party's rights and individual's rights by trying to get rid of the motions to proceed, during the bills by enforcing the so-called talking filibusters. if you can try
trafficing, women's rights, international terrorism, and more. no one nation can solve many of these problems alone. each one calls for a global network of partners -- government, businesses, international and regional organizations, academic institutions, civil society groups, even individuals, all working in concert. building those coalitions is one of the great task of american leadership. we rightly call america be indispensable nation because only the united states has the reach and resolve to rally disparate nations and peoples together to solve problems on a global scale. certainly in defense of our own interests, but also as a force for shared progress. our ability to connect is unparalleled. that, in the end, in the 21st century, is what leadership is about. diplomacy and development are not always glamorous. it is like what max weber said about politics -- the long, slow, drilling -- but it is the only way we'll be able to bring together the disparate and often conflicting interests to move forward in this interconnected world. here is one moment that captures this for me -- in dece
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)